Keith Vaz - male prostitutes

[DanniiMinogue]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3772784/Let-s-party-started-Married-Labour-statesman-Keith-Vaz-met-male-prostitutes-London-flat-wanted-man-drugs.html

Whilst I'm not surprised (there have been rumours about his extra marital behaviour for a while) I do feel for his family. Waking up to conclusive proof that he not only had sex but unprotected sex is beyond awful. He's an complete w*er.

The Guido blog is suggesting much darker allegations.

I definitely think Lowell Goddard packing it in is somehow related.

Is it a problem for Corbyn? Keith Vaz nominated Owen Smith in the leadership campaign...

The Guido blog always suggests much darker allegations will follow and maybe they will

But paying consenting men (or women) for sex is not abuse what has been reported is not abuse

It makes me sick how corrupt and amoral these supposed pillars of the community and politicians are. He's a revolting man and I hope people can see that now.

I assume Guido is referring to Vaz blocking attempts to investigate Lord Janner?

But paying consenting men (or women) for sex is not abuse what has been reported is not abuse

Absolutely. No one here has accused him, or should accuse him, of abuse or breaking any laws. That's very clear. But the alleged actions are in direct conflict with his duties as Chairman of that committee.

"What he did wasn't abuse I really would not compare him to Savile"

I wasn't comparing him to Savile in the sense that his behaviour was as bad as Savile's. I was comparing him to Savile in the sense that he had good reason to think he would get away with it.

It's a headache for Corbyn, as losing a Labour MP would trigger a by-election. I can't see these revelations going down well in Leicester, though expect Labour will hold onto the seat.

I suspect Mrs Vaz' has not been put at risk

Yes I know

But abuse is about power and the threat of power

There is nothing to suggest Vaz has threatened anyone or abused his position or even been hypocritical but it's a conflict of interest and shows very poor lack of judgement we should expect better certianly from senior mp's

He was foolish and arrogant and lacked judgement. Saville was a very very nasty person I don't like to use the word evil but that fits him

He also admitted he didint use a condom with one prostitute. I bet his wife is petrified.

My bet is that this poses no threat at all to her on the basis that sex between them is not a feature of their relationship.

It gets rid of an MP who doesn't back him and a by election would be quite interesting and wouldn't happen until after conference anyway.

I'm also willing to bet that this doesn't come as news to Mrs Vaz and she's known about his proclivities for a while. He was just stupid enough to get caught this time.

I see the BBC are reporting that

Asked if Mr Vaz's position had become untenable, Mr Umunna [member of HASC] said: "That's one of the things we will need to discuss with him" and "collectively come to a view on tomorrow."

and that Jeremy Corbyn has said he views it as a "private" matter.

Bloody hell - obvious, blatant, in-your-face, massive conflict of interests (chair of committee looking into decriminalization of aspects of prostitution, and the chairman has allegedly been caught in a newspaper sting showing him to be a punter) and it's a "private matter".

I voted labour last time round, but it appears that as is so often the case, the left just don't give a single shit about women's rights. They're not even bothering to pretend that objectivity might be a good quality in assessing the evidence for and against legalized prostitution.

I'm also willing to bet that this doesn't come as news to Mrs Vaz

Possibly, but the fact that it's now public will be deeply hurtful to her and to the children. They are the real victims of all this.

Maybe the children, Glad, but IF she knew and was complicit, and happy to take the glory for want of a better word, then she isn't deserving of sympathy at all. And yes, I accept it may not be the case, but I very strongly have reason to believe it was.

What his wife knew or didn't know is entirely bloody irrelevant, and why are we sitting here talking about her behaviour when she hasn't screwed prostitutes, she isn't anyone's elected representative, she isn't chairing any committees? Why do we have to turn a thread about a man's actions into a thread blaming a woman?

He is the one who has been accused of having sex with prostitutes and asking them to supply drugs, while simultaneously being the chair of a House of Commons Select Committee supposedly carrying out an objective investigation into the decriminalization of prostitution, a select committee which also has home office policy on drugs as part of its remit.

If only Labour had an actual leader, who could take a view on this.

Because JC now has a good excuse to deselect Vaz and get another one of his cult members involved in the Revolution!

supposedly carrying out an objective investigation into the decriminalization of prostitution ...

According to Tatchell, the fact that Vaz supports this decriminalisation helps to make it okay

So that's all right then

No-one's blaming Mrs Vaz, Matilda, they're just saying - in response to pp worrying about the risks he might have exposed her to through his unprotected sex with rent boys - that perhaps she isn't in fact at risk

Keith Vaz should have stood down as an MP in 1989 (in his first year). He personally told Salman Rushdie he thought that the fatwa issued against Rushie was "appalling" but a few weeks later addressed a rally of men calling for Rushdie's death who had children with them holding "murderous placards".The protestors were his "constituents" and potential voters. I remember those marches against the Satanic Verses and feel that condoning such hate against freedom of expression helped lead us to the situation we have now with radicalisation.

That same year he implied that an IRA bomb at an army recruitment centre in Leicester had been caused by the Army itself (by storing explosives on site - which they did not).

Throughout his entire Westminster career he has been mired in expenses scandals, allegations of taking bribes, receiving unexplained wads of money, using his influence to fast track passports or impede extradition for certain wealthy individuals. He was not "elected" to his role as Chair of the Select Committee but imposed by Harriet Harman.

I will welcome his fall. How ironic if he is forced to resign from his constituency by those same intolerant constituents that he so avidly appeased many years ago.

I hope none of that is libellous, troglodite.

yeOldeTrout
Google is your friend. You could start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz

awww... isn't that sweet. MNHQ AND wikipedia could be sued for libel.

I doubt if either is very worried. There are a few newspapers in the queue ahead of them and I'm sure they will have had excellent legal advice.

According to Channel 4 News, Vaz is currently a member of the NEC and tonight Labour MPs (and the 172 among them) are voting to decide if MPs will elect the Shadow Cabinet instead of the the leader. They will probably get their way and let MPs decide instead of the leader, but it may have to be ratified by the NEC.